No Social Service Sanctions for This Chief Executive
Aware of being shut out, lied to, and ignored by elected representatives and leaders alike, the American public has responded with energy, concern, and commitment. It now tunes in daily to a wide range of media outlets, turns out to protest in numbers never seen before, and shows up at town halls in strength to inform elected officials of its displeasure at the way things are going.
What was our surprise to find the government responded with its own energy and commitment to shut us out, lie to us, and ignore us like never before. How did they do this?1 Simple. Clog media outlets with garish propaganda; shrug off protests; deport protesters; skip the town halls; gut civil rights and constitutional protections; attack universities and law firms; and label anyone who does not share the president’s opinion a terrorist. It’s working okay. And just last week, House Republicans added a refinement of their own: pass legislation they don’t want us knowing about in the middle of the night. By the time it gets to the Senate, surprise! Even they don’t know what’s in it.
It is passing odd that the single major piece of legislation the House has focused on since forming in January would get them into such a stew. After working feverishly on Trump’s big, beautiful bill — acknowledged to effect, if passed, the largest transfer of wealth from the average U.S. citizen to the very wealthy — they couldn’t finalize it in broad daylight, but had to finish it up in the wee hours before broad daylight began. Perhaps it’s because they think so much better when they’ve had no sleep for a week. A good night’s sleep might have ruined everything.
Why sneak through one of their most visionary provisions buried in a 1,000-page bill in the middle of the night? Could our representatives be guilty of modesty?
Perhaps there is no need for us to know what our government is doing. After all, we elected them, and they constantly reassure us that everything they do is for our own good. All of it. Removing ballot dropboxes to make secure elections even more secure. Wiping suspicious people from the voting registries. Abandoning climate change research so as not to frighten the children. Lowering standards for hazardous air pollutants so everyone can breathe them healthfully. Re-profiling carbon dioxide from greenhouse gas to plant nutrient. Rethinking what safe drinking water really is. Easing operational costs of coal-fired power plants to turn the country into a real moneymaker.
We are so terribly grateful. Surely our public servants must know that the more we learn about their tireless and charitable efforts, the more we admire them. So why sneak through one of their most visionary provisions buried in a 1,000-page bill in the middle of the night? Could our representatives be guilty of modesty?
But they did. They wheeled this dandy provision past us all bundled up in Trump’s unwieldy budget bill as if it were leprous. But why? It’s a great suggestion that will alleviate their patron, President Trump, of the last tier of umpires inappropriately assigned to fetter his presidential performance: those annoying federal judges. Yes, although the provision has nothing to do with spending or saving or anything budgetary, they tucked it in there anyway. What a good idea. It threatens to strip federal courts of their power of contempt. Donald will love them for it.
As of May 1, President Trump faced over 328 lawsuits concerning missteps taken by his administration since January 20, 2025.
Established by the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, the contempt power is the court’s only recourse to enforce its orders when the defendant ignores those orders. In civil cases, federal courts often resolve a suit by issuing an injunction that requires the offending party to perform or refrain from performing certain acts that caused the complaint to be filed. If that party fails to comply, the court will remind them of their obligation to obey the court’s injunction. If the party persists in ignoring the court’s order, the court has the power to find the party in contempt, whereupon the judge may impose sanctions on the party. It could be a fine, social service, or jail time.
As of May 1, President Trump faced over 328 lawsuits concerning missteps taken by his administration since January 20, 2025, and new cases are being filed every day.2 The majority of cases involve Trump’s immigration policies. Other popular areas in order of diminishing frequency include: federal funding, the government workforce, DOGE, and civil and voting rights. Over 200 court injunctions against the administration have been issued.3 The courts are, in fact, the single branch of government to fulfill its responsibility to check Trump’s many highly questionable actions from which the country is reeling. To date they have enforced constitutional guarantees, required the administration comply with statutes, and insisted decisions made by the Supreme Court be upheld.
Aware of this fraught relationship between Trump and the courts, we must ask why House Republicans would introduce a provision to hamper the courts’ work at a time when they are so busy? Perhaps it has to do with their single-minded focus on reducing government costs by lightening the court’s load by drastically abridging its authority to hold disobedient parties in contempt. However, removing the courts’ contempt power shaves the teeth from the saws of justice, inevitably sliding legal outcomes Trump’s way. Perhaps our U.S. representatives did not realize this. They did, after all, pass the bill in the middle of the night, no doubt dizzy with elation and maybe fatigue.
Besides dissuading numberless plaintiffs from advancing their complaint, the provision would strip the court of its only means of enforcing its ruling should the plaintiff’s suit be successful.
The textual prestidigitation contained in Section 703024 of the legislation is actually straightforward. It simply requires the judge in a federal civil lawsuit to order the party bringing the suit5 and seeking an injunction — a request, for example, to stop Trump from hauling cafeteria workers with tattoos off to jail — to put up bond money in the amount the judge feels would cover the damages Trump might incur should the injunction be found to be issued incorrectly. (Yikes!)
Awarded wide discretion to set bonds, judges often refrain from doing so. However, to satisfy Section 70302, a plaintiff accusing the federal government of unconstitutional actions would have to put up a bond that could potentially expose the plaintiff to financial ruin, thus effectively blocking them from seeking legal redress when the perceived offender is — that’s right — too big to sue. But, also according to the provision, if no money is put up for that bond, the federal court loses its authority to enforce contempt citations in that case. In plain text, besides dissuading numberless plaintiffs from advancing their complaint, the provision would strip the court of its only means of enforcing its ruling should the plaintiff’s suit be successful. The provision would give Trump the carte-blanche immunity in the courts he enjoys at large, and just might encourage him to flout court orders with greater impudence than he does now.6
Should the Senate pass Trump’s blockbuster bill with Section 70302 burrowed deep inside, we outsiders will unhappily witness the dawn of a fearful new era: the post-E. Jean Carroll days of one Donald J. Trump. With no restraints, the man could put the screws to anyone who dares object to his behavior in court or elsewhere. Even Trump doesn’t know himself well enough to know how far he will go. But however far that is, will history blame Trump or will it blame us for our leniency and cowardice that unbridled a bad man to become a monster?
* William F. Buckley, Jr., to Gore Vidal during one of 11 debates aired by ABC in 1968. The ratings of the struggling U.S. television and radio network soared.
- Why the government would want to shut us out begs a complex and worthwhile discussion to be tackled another time. ↩︎
- A layman might think that one single person serving as the inspiration for this rash of legal scrambles would, in and of itself, constitute contempt of court. There are only so many courts, so many judges, and other people require bench time, do they not? ↩︎
- https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-lawsuits-against-trump-administration ↩︎
- Within the recondite enclaves of necromancy, the number 70302, when worked into the correct combination that the author has no authority to divulge, means “Rescue the Boss.” ↩︎
- You, me, any public interest group, and those citizens paying attention, that is to say, any organization concerned with preserving the life of American democracy. ↩︎
- The provision would also apply to court orders issued prior to the law’s enactment, rendering thousands of prior orders unenforceable. ↩︎